Born Dead

[Protestant]

I didn't say the elder brother was without sin, JESUS DID.

Jesus was simply repeating the words of the self-righteous elder brother who held a pharisaical mindset as did the rich young ruler Jesus encountered.

In no wise did Jesus agree with the elder brother’s self-assessment.

“If Original Sin is true, then no man is without sin, you are a sinner the moment you are conceived, you sinned in Adam.”

Consider why Jesus was born of a virgin. By so doing, the guilt of Adam was not imputed to Jesus. Guilt is the result of sin.

Furthermore, Scripture declares your statement to be an orthodox Christian belief, despite what the Church of Christ teach.

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

“The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.”

“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.”

“The only reasonable answer is a little child.”

Reasonable is not necessarily biblical. What is reasonable to you may be blasphemy to our Lord.

In your ‘reasonable’ scenario, a little ‘child elder’ is invented who dies sinless.

Nowhere does Jesus assert this fiction. Of what and why he dies we know not. Certainly this would be an important plot point.

You then imagine a scenario whereby years later the baby younger brother grows up alone demanding his inheritance. Though Jesus tells us the father divided the inheritance between the two brothers, you insist the elder brother died years earlier.

By so doing, you claim authority over Jesus’ version.

Furthermore, you have re-written the parable in order to remain true to the fiction you have invented.

Had the elder brother died a sinless child, his body would not have been subject to decay. So, like the Blessed Virgin Mary fiction, the child would have ascended to Heaven bodily…..another important story point neglected by Jesus: the Ascension of the Elder Brother.

Once arriving in Heaven, you reveal that the elder brother was given his eternal assignment: field worker. Obviously, the elder brother was a robust, athletic little boy who could swing a sickle with the best of them.

So much for the hope of playing a harp on a soft, cushy cloud.
Heaven is a place of hard work and labor.

You also enlighten us to the fact that years passed in Heaven while the elder brother worked his heavenly job faithfully.

By this revelation another Christian myth is shattered: Heaven is not a timeless eternity as many believed.

But the tour de force revelation is the fact that Heavenly saints are no better than earthly sinners.

For they can still display anger, hatred, jealousy, pride and envy.

In fact, God’s will is not done in Heaven as the Lord’s Prayer insists.

And just when you think Winman’s revelations have run their course, we discover that it is the sinless elder brother who displays these sinful attributes.

Go figure!

Thank you, Winman, for setting Jesus and us straight on the correct interpretation of this classic, but too often misinterpreted parable.









[

 

[Winman]

Jesus was simply repeating the words of the self-righteous elder brother who held a pharisaical mindset as did the rich young ruler Jesus encountered.

In no wise did Jesus agree with the elder brother’s self-assessment.

Uh.... It was a parable. It was Jesus himself who made up this story. He did not have to make up this story that the elder son would claim never to have sinned, yet he did, and there is a reason for this, Jesus was attempting to teach a spiritual truth.

He also made up the story of the shepherd with 100 sheep. None were lost originally. He also made up the story of the woman with 10 pieces of silver, none were lost originally.

He also made up the story of the prodigal who was not lost originally.

Now, if Original Sin is true, why would Jesus repeatedly make up stories that contradict and refute this monumental doctrine? Why would Jesus make up parables that represent falsehood? Obviously he wouldn't.

No, Jesus told these repeated parables because Original Sin is not true. Men are not born lost, men are not born dead in sin.

It was these parables that caused me to question Original Sin many years ago. I was taught Original Sin just like all Baptists, and I believed it, although I always sensed there was something unjust about being condemned for something that Adam did. I never voted for Adam to be my representative.

You know, I don't like President Obama, but I believe in our system of government and he won the election. I choose to participate in our system, so he does represent me. But I never voted for Adam to represent me in the garden. It is not therefore just for his sin to be imputed to me or anyone else. But even if I did go along with it, God said the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father (Eze 18:20. God is not unjust, he does not punish anyone for someone else's sin.

Consider why Jesus was born of a virgin. By so doing, the guilt of Adam was not imputed to Jesus. Guilt is the result of sin.

False. Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign. (Isa 7:14). Plus, scripture tells us he was MADE of the seed of David according to the flesh.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

This teaching that Jesus had to be born of a virgin to escape a sin nature has no support in scripture (in fact it is refuted by scripture), and is nothing but pure superstition. Scripture says Jesus took on him THE SAME flesh and blood as us, and took on the NATURE of the SEED OF ABRAHAM who was born after the fall. It says he was made like unto his brethren (the Jews) in ALL THINGS.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to

Furthermore, Scripture declares your statement to be an orthodox Christian belief, despite what the Church of Christ teach.

“Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

"Behold I was beaten in anger, and in wrath did my mother strike me."

Substitute other words and it becomes obvious this verse was describing David's mother, and not himself. But you have been conditioned to understand this verse falsely .

David did not have the same mother as his brothers, his mother had two daughters, Zeruiah and Abigail with Nahash the Ammonite. David's mother was considered polluted, and David was considered the black sheep of the family. When Samuel asked to see Jesse's sons, twice he did not bring David forward until Samuel insisted.

David is simply declaring his disgust for himself here, he is not teaching that all men are born sinners.

“The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.”

Yes, and the same Psalm says children are poisonous like an adder, have huge teeth like a young lion, and melt like a snail. Why do you take one verse out of context and ignore all the others?

This is obvious hyperbole and should in no way be used to form doctrine.

“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.”

Ever see a baby when they are born, they are covered with blood. This shows how we come to sin, by exposure to sin.

Job also said that no clean thing can come from a woman.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

Job 15:4 How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?

If the sin nature is inherited from our parents, scripture supports that it comes from the woman, not the man. Was Jesus born of a woman?

But I notice no one ever attempts to use these scriptures to prove Original Sin, do they? :laugh:

Reasonable is not necessarily biblical. What is reasonable to you may be blasphemy to our Lord.

In your ‘reasonable’ scenario, a little ‘child elder’ is invented who dies sinless.

It is more than reasonable, Romans 9:11 plainly says Esau and Jacob had committed no sin in their mother's womb. If they would have died, they would have been sinless. Millions of children have died in their mother's womb.

Nowhere does Jesus assert this fiction. Of what and why he dies we know not. Certainly this would be an important plot point.

You then imagine a scenario whereby years later the baby younger brother grows up alone demanding his inheritance. Though Jesus tells us the father divided the inheritance between the two brothers, you insist the elder brother died years earlier.

By so doing, you claim authority over Jesus’ version.

Furthermore, you have re-written the parable in order to remain true to the fiction you have invented.

Had the elder brother died a sinless child, his body would not have been subject to decay. So, like the Blessed Virgin Mary fiction, the child would have ascended to Heaven bodily…..another important story point neglected by Jesus: the Ascension of the Elder Brother.

Once arriving in Heaven, you reveal that the elder brother was given his eternal assignment: field worker. Obviously, the elder brother was a robust, athletic little boy who could swing a sickle with the best of them.

So much for the hope of playing a harp on a soft, cushy cloud.
Heaven is a place of hard work and labor.

You also enlighten us to the fact that years passed in Heaven while the elder brother worked his heavenly job faithfully.

By this revelation another Christian myth is shattered: Heaven is not a timeless eternity as many believed.

But the tour de force revelation is the fact that Heavenly saints are no better than earthly sinners.

For they can still display anger, hatred, jealousy, pride and envy.

In fact, God’s will is not done in Heaven as the Lord’s Prayer insists.

And just when you think Winman’s revelations have run their course, we discover that it is the sinless elder brother who displays these sinful attributes.

Go figure!

Thank you, Winman, for setting Jesus and us straight on the correct interpretation of this classic, but too often misinterpreted parable.

Blah, blah, blah.

You cannot explain why Jesus would show all these persons as not lost originally. In your view, Jesus must have been ignorant of Original Sin.

You just keep on believing Augustine and Calvin, I will believe Jesus. We'll see how that turns out. :thumbsup:

 

[Protestant]

It was Jesus himself who made up this story.

Kind of like you making up fictitious details which nowhere appear in the story?

He did not have to make up this story

Neither does He 'have to' explain the true meaning to you. However in your 'divine' mind, you alone hold the key to true interpretation. I challenge you to name, with sources, 3 witnesses in leadership throughout Church history who hold to your fabulous fiction.

that the elder son would claim never to have sinned, yet he did, and there is a reason for this, Jesus was attempting to teach a spiritual truth.

So true. Unfortunately the spiritual truth He teaches flies right through your divinity without leaving a trace.

Now, if Original Sin is true, why would Jesus repeatedly make up stories that contradict and refute this monumental doctrine? Why would Jesus make up parables that represent falsehood? Obviously he wouldn't.

No, Jesus told these repeated parables because Original Sin is not true. Men are not born lost, men are not born dead in sin.

I believe you believe with all your heart you were born a holy baby which is why you wish to prove your sinlessness.

Furthermore, I believe you believe your poopy diapers did not stink either. More proof of your sinlessness.

It was these parables that caused me to question Original Sin many years ago.

I'll bet it had more to do with a serpent whispering in your ear, "Hath God said....?"

I was taught Original Sin just like all Baptists, and I believed it, although I always sensed there was something unjust about being condemned for something that Adam did. I never voted for Adam to be my representative.

Now the truth comes out. If Winman had been our representative in the Garden the entire outcome of world history would have taken a turn for the better. But alas, God's wisdom was deficient. His choice of Adam was a poor one.

You know, I don't like President Obama, but I believe in our system of government and he won the election. I choose to participate in our system, so he does represent me. But I never voted for Adam to represent me in the garden.

Nor did you vote concerning the details of your birth, sex, country, year, parents, siblings, physical health, mental health, race, etc., etc. I'll wager if you were born an African American you would heartily embrace your President. If you are African American and do not embrace him, I stand to be corrected.

What you find extremely distasteful is the truth that no man 'votes' for his eternal destiny. That decision was made in eternity by none other than the Lord God Almighty.

In your divine mind the thought of God making the most important decisions concerning men's destiny before they are born, without consulting men first, enrages you. No greater injustice can be imagined.....right?

That was exactly the case with Paul's detractors in Romans 9:14.

In an earlier post you cited Romans 9:11 as proof children are born sinless. Jacob and Esau not yet born had done neither good nor evil.

Esau had done nothing evil, yet in verse 13 the Lord declares He hated Esau.

In like manner, Jacob had done nothing good or deserving mercy, yet the Lord declared He loved Esau.

Why? So that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, [whether good or evil] but of him that calleth...

Had Jacob's election been contingent on foreseen faith, Paul would have said, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of foreseen faith."

No. Faith is not any part of the reason for election. Faith is the work of God.

Nor is foreseen unbelief any reason for reprobation.

Both decrees originate in God's eternal will of good pleasure contingent on nothing in man.

Oh how the Pelagians and Arminians rage against Paul, accusing him of portraying a mean, tyrannical, capricious, unjust God.

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?"

The same holds true today.

There is still nothing new under the sun.

(To be continued)

 

[Winman]

Kind of like you making up fictitious details which nowhere appear in the story?

And what details are those?

Neither does He 'have to' explain the true meaning to you. However in your 'divine' mind, you alone hold the key to true interpretation. I challenge you to name, with sources, 3 witnesses in leadership throughout Church history who hold to your fabulous fiction.

You tell me then. Why would Jesus tell stories about persons who were not originally lost? The sheep wasn't lost, the silver piece wasn't lost, the prodigal son was not lost. If Original Sin is true, then everyone is born lost. So why would Jesus tell stories about people who could not possibly exist if Original Sin is true?

You explain that to me if I am so deluded.

So true. Unfortunately the spiritual truth He teaches flies right through your divinity without leaving a trace.

Then you explain why Jesus told us the elder son never sinned. If Original Sin is true, no such person could exist. Surely Jesus would understand this, so why did he tell us a story about someone who never sinned?

I believe you believe with all your heart you were born a holy baby which is why you wish to prove your sinlessness.

No, I believe scripture teaches God made man upright.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

You can read, what does Ecc 7:29 say?

Furthermore, I believe you believe your poopy diapers did not stink either. More proof of your sinlessness.

Now you are just embarrassing yourself. How perverse.

I'll bet it had more to do with a serpent whispering in your ear, "Hath God said....?"

I just showed you what God said in Ecc 7:29, what did it say?

Now the truth comes out. If Winman had been our representative in the Garden the entire outcome of world history would have taken a turn for the better. But alas, God's wisdom was deficient. His choice of Adam was a poor one.

When did you vote for Adam to be your representative? I didn't do that.

Nor did you vote concerning the details of your birth, sex, country, year, parents, siblings, physical health, mental health, race, etc., etc. I'll wager if you were born an African American you would heartily embrace your President. If you are African American and do not embrace him, I stand to be corrected.

President Obama IS my President whether I personally like him or not. When you participate in an election, you agree to support the winner. He won.

But I never voted for Adam to be my representative, and neither did you.

Regardless, God said the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Again, you can read, did God say the son shall bear the iniquity of his father?

What you find extremely distasteful is the truth that no man 'votes' for his eternal destiny. That decision was made in eternity by none other than the Lord God Almighty.

Then why is it called an election?

In your divine mind the thought of God making the most important decisions concerning men's destiny before they are born, without consulting men first, enrages you. No greater injustice can be imagined.....right?

I don't have a problem with God making decisions concerning man's destiny, I have a problem with Calvinism. They are NOT the same thing whatsoever.

That was exactly the case with Paul's detractors in Romans 9:14.

And Paul was referring back to Jeremiah 18. Try reading that chapter and you will find God does not unconditionally bless or curse people, but conditionally.

In an earlier post you cited Romans 9:11 as proof children are born sinless. Jacob and Esau not yet born had done neither good nor evil.

Esau had done nothing evil, yet in verse 13 the Lord declares He hated Esau.

He is speaking of Edom, read Malachi 1:3. Again, this is speaking of nations, and God did not hate them unconditionally.

In like manner, Jacob had done nothing good or deserving mercy, yet the Lord declared He loved Esau.

Jacob represents the nation Israel here.

Why? So that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, [whether good or evil] but of him that calleth...

Correct, and "of him that calleth" is speaking of those who respond in faith.

Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

Had Jacob's election been contingent on foreseen faith, Paul would have said, "that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of foreseen faith."

God did see Jacob's faith, that is why he said Esau would serve him.

No. Faith is not any part of the reason for election. Faith is the work of God.

Of course it is. No one is elect who does not believe.

Nor is foreseen unbelief any reason for reprobation.

No, unbelief is the reason for reprobation.

Both decrees originate in God's eternal will of good pleasure contingent on nothing in man.

Care to share the scripture that teaches this?

Oh how the Pelagians and Arminians rage against Paul, accusing him of portraying a mean, tyrannical, capricious, unjust God.

"Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?"

The same holds true today.

There is still nothing new under the sun.

(To be continued)

And that is all you can do, call names. You can't present a word of scripture to support your man-made doctrine.

 

[Protestant]

It is not therefore just for his sin to be imputed to me or anyone else.

There you go again. Your divine nature is stirred up against that which the Lord has done.

"Therefore, just as through one man [Adam] sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned — For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." (Romans 5:12-14​

Please note Scripture charges all humans with the sin of Adam though they did not actually commit the same sin.

Please make note that Scripture does not say, "because all sinned, except newborns and small children."

Also note it was the sin committed by Adam, not Eve, that guiltworthiness is imputed to all his progeny.

But even if I did go along with it,

How humble of you.

God said the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father (Eze 18:20). God is not unjust, he does not punish anyone for someone else's sin.

Let's read the whole Scripture you cite:

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

It's pretty self-evident that Ezekiel teaches you cannot die in the stead of your father, nor he for you. You will die for your sin and he will die for his.

Furthermore, God declares that He has the right to visit the sins of the father unto the children of the 4th generation. God declares the right to punish sin with sin.

In addition, God does punish the innocent for the sin of others. Remember Jesus Christ? I rest my case.

False. Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign. (Isa 7:14). Plus, scripture tells us he was MADE of the seed of David according to the flesh.

Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

This teaching that Jesus had to be born of a virgin to escape a sin nature has no support in scripture (in fact it is refuted by scripture), and is nothing but pure superstition. Scripture says Jesus took on him THE SAME flesh and blood as us, and took on the NATURE of the SEED OF ABRAHAM who was born after the fall. It says he was made like unto his brethren (the Jews) in ALL THINGS.

All things, SIN EXCEPTED.

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

The Man Jesus was without sin as a newborn baby, toddler, teen, young adult and grown adult.

How could that be? It could only be through His virgin birth. A conception which had no earthly father.

"Behold I was beaten in anger, and in wrath did my mother strike me."

Substitute other words and it becomes obvious this verse was describing David's mother, and not himself....David's mother was considered polluted

Good Lord. Are you calling David's mother a whore? If so, your first meeting with David and his mom should be quite memorable.

Yes, and the same Psalm says children are poisonous like an adder, have huge teeth like a young lion, and melt like a snail. Why do you take one verse out of context and ignore all the others?

This is obvious hyperbole and should in no way be used to form doctrine.

I continue to believe you believe you were a holy child, a little angel who sinneth not, who eagerly shared toys with your siblings, never lying or never giving your mother lip.....always asking, "How may I help you, mother dearest?" This is why you cannot imagine children poisonous like an adder, etc.

If the sin nature is inherited from our parents, scripture supports that it comes from the woman, not the man.

Pleeeese reread Romans 5 ever so slowly and deliberately. There you will discover that sin entered the human race through Adam.

Was Jesus born of a woman?

Is the Pope Catholic?

And now, dear reader, I leave you with a final word from our illustrious opponent; his unedited response to my concern for his preposterous embellishments to the parable of the Prodigal Son:

Blah, blah, blah.

 

[webdog]

This concept teaches we are conceived in a separated from God state. United with God we are “alive” and separated from God we are “dead.” When Adam sinned and was corrupted, he was separated from God. Thus all in Adam are separated from God and therefore dead at conception. When God puts us spiritually in Christ, we are made alive together with Christ.

Now lets look at some arguments against the doctrine that as a consequence of Adam’s sin, mankind is conceived in a spiritually dead, separated from God state, and is born corrupted with the “old man” nature, referring to Adam’s nature after his eyes were opened.

Rom 7:9 For I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

If we are born dead in sins, how could Paul say he was ever alive once? And how could he die if he was born dead?

This verse is certainly difficult with differing views presented in commentaries. I believe Paul was saying he thought he was alive, not knowing that he was condemned, but when he became aware of the requirement of perfection, he “died” in that he became aware he was dead. This view is supported contextually with Romans 7:13. The law did not become death, but sin was shown to be death through the Law. Sin becoming utterly sinful speaks to awareness because sin is always utterly sinful from God’s perspective.

In summary, Romans 7:9 does not teach we were alive at conception, but rather we did not know we were dead. This view is consistent with being conceived in iniquity, and therefore separated from our holy God.

In the parable of the prodigal son, the illustration starts with the son being together with the Father, hence alive, then he chooses to sin and leaves the Father, becoming separated and hence dead, and then he returns to the Father on his own power, becoming alive again. Now can we say that everyone starts out alive or does everyone start out condemned already according to John 3:18? We start out condemned, and separated because if we were together with Christ we would be alive and not condemned.

I agree we can establish doctrine supported by parables but we must be careful not to take the illustration past its purpose. In this parable, the son starts out alive, but since this facet of the story does not mesh with all the verses that say because of Adam, we start out “in Adam” and not “in Christ,” that part of the stories’ detail does not override all the verses presenting that we are conceived in iniquity.

The other two illustrations of Luke 15, the lost sheep and the lost coin, tell the story of something belonging to the owner. Who is our owner? God. But because of the consequence of the Fall of Adam, mankind is conceived in a separated state, hence lost. When someone is united with Christ, they are recovered, found, redeemed, transferred from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of God. Next note that the 99 sheep are not really united with the Father, for they are in need of repentance. So the lost sheep actually represents a lost person who repents, which is consistent with being condemned already. The 10 coin parable makes the same point, the “owner” rejoices over the recovery of the one who repents.

In summary, both Romans 7 and Luke 15 are consistent with the Fall.

Next lets consider 1 Peter 2:25: The people in view, were continually straying which refers to the fact they were continually sinning. A lost separated person can continue to sin and store up wrath for himself or herself. The word returned might better be translated turn back, which describes a person who is going the wrong way, i.e. sinning, and then turning back toward the One who leads them in paths of righteousness. So again, no actual support for denial of the consequence of the Fall.

Everyone is created by God, and thus everyone is a “child of God” in the sense that God is our creator. But to say these children of God cannot be condemned and be children of wrath makes no sense. Next, God chose the nation of Israel to be His people, so in another sense, the believing children of the promise were “children of God.” And now, under the New Covenant, all those chosen by God and spiritually placed in Christ are born anew, becoming “children of God” in the third sense. So when we see the phrase, children of God, or sons of God, we must look to the context to see which of the three ways the phrase is being used.

As far as 1 Corinthians 15:22, the death referred to with “in Adam all die” is the second death at the judgment. Those in Adam have not been made alive, thus they are spiritually dead already and will suffer the second death.

On the other side of the ledger are those who add to the consequence of the Fall by redefining “dead” from being separated and unable to merit being reunited with God, to being unable to seek God and trust in Christ. Lets take a look at this erroneous view:

They cite Romans 3:11 which says no one seeks God. But this verse does not say no one ever seeks God at any time. Thus the Calvinist rewrite does not stand up to the light of scrutiny. The purpose of Paul in citing this OT verse is to demonstrate we are all under sin, for no one seeks God when they are sinning. Many verses teach men seek God from Genesis to Revelation.

In summary, Calvinism simply and mistakenly redefines being “dead” to include “total spiritual inability.” Contrary to this - being born dead is a valid teaching of scripture, we are conceived in iniquity (in Adam) and not “in Christ.” God puts those of His choosing in Christ where we are “made alive” together with Christ. In our fallen “dead” state, all our works of righteousness are as filthy rags, we are unable to do anything to merit salvation. Thus this OT truth leads us to Christ.

Born dead is an oxymoron in the way you use it. Death is the cessation or ending of life. If there is no life initially upon conception, the very definition necessities there can be no death. Words have meanings.

 

[Winman]

There you go again. Your divine nature is stirred up against that which the Lord has done.

"Therefore, just as through one man [Adam] sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned — For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." (Romans 5:12-14​

Please note Scripture charges all humans with the sin of Adam though they did not actually commit the same sin.

Romans 5:12 does not say Adam's sin passed on all men, it says DEATH passed upon all men "for that all have sinned".

Please make note that Scripture does not say, "because all sinned, except newborns and small children."

Again, it says DEATH passed on all men, for that all have sinned. This is speaking of spiritual death, not physical. Look at the language used in Romans 5, it is speaking of condemnation, judgment, righteousness, and justification. It is not speaking of physical death whatsoever in this chapter.

Now, all men do physically die as a consequence of Adam's sin, because man was sent out of the garden and prevented from eating of the tree of life.

This is why babies and little children die, it has nothing to do with sin. Animals also physically die, and they cannot sin.

Also note it was the sin committed by Adam, not Eve, that guiltworthiness is imputed to all his progeny.

Not true, the scriptures also say Eve sinned.

1 Tim 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The scriptures also call Eve Adam;

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

How humble of you.

Hey, I never chose Adam to represent me. I am not the first to make this objection;

...It impugns the justice of God by implying: (a) that God holds men responsible for the violation of a covenant which they had no part in establishing...We not only never authorized Adam to make such a covenant, but there is no evidence that he ever made one at all. It is not even certain that Adam knew he should have posterity... (b) that upon the basis of this covenant God accounts men as sinners who are not sinners... (c) That, after accounting men to be sinners who are not sinners, God makes them sinners by immediately creating each human soul with a corrupt nature such as will correspond to his decree. This is not only to assume a false view of the origin of the soul, but also to make God directly the author of sin...

A. H. Strong is a famous Reformed Baptist theologian, and he believed it unjust for man to be charged with sin when we never authorized Adam to be our representative. In fact, there is no scriptural evidence that such a covenant was made.

Let's read the whole Scripture you cite:

"The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."

It's pretty self-evident that Ezekiel teaches you cannot die in the stead of your father, nor he for you. You will die for your sin and he will die for his.

Correct, men are not to spiritually or physically die for sins their father committed or vice versa. Every man shall die for his OWN sin.

Deu 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

You would have us believe that God is a hypocrite who breaks his own laws. Jesus hated hypocrites.

Furthermore, God declares that He has the right to visit the sins of the father unto the children of the 4th generation. God declares the right to punish sin with sin.

You left out an important part of the verse, read again;

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

God visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation OF THEM THAT HATE ME. If they follow in their father's footsteps and hate God, he will punish them. But if they love God he will show them mercy.

It is not saying God punishes the children unconditionally without cause as Calvinist falsely teaches.

In addition, God does punish the innocent for the sin of others. Remember Jesus Christ? I rest my case.

Jesus died, did he sin?

All things, SIN EXCEPTED.

Only if you ASSUME men have a sin nature, which you and others have never proved. Show scripture that says we are born with a sin nature.

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

The Man Jesus was without sin as a newborn baby, toddler, teen, young adult and grown adult.

How could that be? It could only be through His virgin birth. A conception which had no earthly father.

Again, Jesus was born of a virgin as a sign. (Isa 7:14). Jesus was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. He was called the "son of David". He could not have been related to David through God.

Good Lord. Are you calling David's mother a whore? If so, your first meeting with David and his mom should be quite memorable.

I do not know the exact circumstances, but David's mother had two children with Nahash the Ammonite, these were David's two sisters Zeruiah and Abigail. Look it up for yourself, it is FACT.

I do not know if David's mother had children with Nahash out of wedlock or in wedlock, but it was considered a pollution for a Jewish woman to have relations with a non-Jew. This may be what David is referring to in Psa 51:5.

It is possible that David was conceived out of wedlock with Jesse, this may be what David is saying in Psa 51:5, but scholars are not completely certain.

David was short and ruddy (red haired), his brothers were tall and handsome. He was not liked by his older brothers. When Samuel came to Jesse and asked to see his sons, Jesse did not bring David to Samuel twice. Samuel had to insist that David be brought forward.

David had always been treated as slightly inferior, the black sheep of the family because of his mother. David is simply pouring out his disgust for himself in Psa 51, he is not teaching doctrine on Original Sin.

I continue to believe you believe you were a holy child, a little angel who sinneth not, who eagerly shared toys with your siblings, never lying or never giving your mother lip.....always asking, "How may I help you, mother dearest?" This is why you cannot imagine children poisonous like an adder, etc.

My parents divorced when I was very young, I really did not know my mother very well, I was raised by my father. I would bet you are far more of a Momma's Boy than me.

Pleeeese reread Romans 5 ever so slowly and deliberately. There you will discover that sin entered the human race through Adam.

Is the Pope Catholic?

And now, dear reader, I leave you with a final word from our illustrious opponent; his unedited response to my concern for his preposterous embellishments to the parable of the Prodigal Son:

Sin did enter the world through Adam. But Romans 5 does not say Adam's sin passed on man, it says DEATH.

Adam set the "legal precedent" for sin. After Adam, all men were condemned to death as the wage or punishment for sin. When men sin, death is imputed to them.

Jesus set the legal precedent for faith. When we believe on Jesus as Jesus believed on his Father, righteousness is imputed to us.

Again, read Romans 5:12 with comprehension, it does not say sin passed on us.

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Your problem is that you know all sorts of Reformed false doctrine, but you do not know the word of God.

 

[BobRyan]

Look, there have been millions, if not billions of unborn, or very young children that have died.

We both agree on that. And we both agree that children do not go to hell but rather that God destines them for Heaven.

But in my case - I argue that they get there by the Grace of God - via the Gospel and the provision made for them in the Gospel, the redemption wrought by the blood of Christ.

That is why I believe Jesus mentions 99 sheep that never went astray and need not repentance

Certainly that is possible except for the fallen nature, the sinful nature that is described in Romans 3. Paul includes himself as having the nature that "does not seek after God" - but clearly Paul is not example of someone who "does not seek after God" - so it is clear that in his case it is only true of him - in that he does have a sinful nature.

It is that sinful nature that requires grace even for an infant. Grace that they have through Christ.

This is why I prefer the unfallen angels as a more fitting antitype for that 99 sheep who have no need of repentance illustration.

We KNOW from Romans 9:11 that unborn children have done no evil.

I fully agree.

Saying someone does not seek God does not prove we are born with a sin nature,

When we read the list in Romans it is not only that they do not seek after God - it is that they have evil desires/tendencies and as we are told by God "the heart is deceitfully wicked" - from birth the rage of the infant is manifest.

and it does not prove inability, you have been conditioned to believe that.

The inability is in that fact that the person does not seek God. And in Romans 8 Paul says that the mind set on the sinful nature "does not submit to the Law of God - neither indeed CAN it".

So the inability is established in Romans 8 and it is universal according to Romans 3.

But so also is the "drawing of God" that enables all that the inability disables according to John 12:32 - God "Draws all" and according to John 16 He "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" - not just the saints, not just the saved.

If I said that NONE of my neighbors ever goes to church, no, not one, would you understand that to mean they CANNOT go to church? NO.

Agreed. In Romans 3 we have the universal "no one seeks after God".

But in Romans 8 we have the "cannot" -- "the mind set on the sinful nature does not submit to the Law of God - neither indeed CAN it".



No reasonable person would ever interpret a statement like that to mean that.

But that is exactly what you are doing with Romans 3, you are reading a sin nature and inability into this scripture, when it is simply stating a fact. It does not say these persons are unable to repent and seek God.

In fact, there is scripture that shows men seeking God.

2 Chr 19:3 Nevertheless there are good things found in thee, in that thou hast taken away the groves out of the land, and hast prepared thine heart to seek God.

God said good things were found in king Jehoshaphat and that he had prepared his heart to seek God. It does not say God had to regenerate him before he was able to seek God, it says he himself prepared his heart to seek God.

So, Romans 3 does not prove a sin nature or inability, it is simply a statement of fact that men do not seek God.

And you do not have to have a sin nature to sin. Satan was created perfect, and yet he sinned. Adam and Eve were created "very good" (Gen 1:31) and yet they were able to sin. All the angels were "very good" and yet one third of them sinned.

All that is required to sin is free will and a lack of faith in God's word.

Indeed. But free will is supernaturally created by God for Adam in his very creation. Then after the fall it is supernaturally enabled/maintained/sustained by God in the Gen 3 "placing of enmity" (war) between the seed of the woman and the seed of the saint - for all mankind.

And also "drawing ALL" John 12:32 - which even by Calvinist standards the drawing of God enables all the depravity disables in terms of the free will choice to accept the Gospel.

They just object to the "unqualified ALL" that you find in John 12:32.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Winman]

We both agree on that. And we both agree that children do not go to hell but rather that God destines them for Heaven.

But in my case - I argue that they get there by the Grace of God - via the Gospel and the provision made for them in the Gospel, the redemption wrought by the blood of Christ.

No, the gospel says we must believe on Jesus to be saved. You are saying God grants salvation to persons without faith in Christ. This is a serious problem. Plus, Esau and Jacob had done no evil, they had no reason to repent, just as the 99 sheep who never went astray and need no repentance.

Certainly that is possible except for the fallen nature, the sinful nature that is described in Romans 3. Paul includes himself as having the nature that "does not seek after God" - but clearly Paul is not example of someone who "does not seek after God" - so it is clear that in his case it is only true of him - in that he does have a sinful nature.

Again, you have provided no scripture that proves man is born with a sin nature.

Again, if I said that none of my neighbors ever goes to church, no, not one, does this prove they are unable to go to church? NO, it is simply stating a fact about my neighbors.

The fact that men do not seek God is not proof they are unable to seek God. You are assuming that.

It is that sinful nature that requires grace even for an infant. Grace that they have through Christ.

You assume that all men sin because they are born with a sinful nature, when scripture clearly teaches a sin nature is not required to sin.

Satan was created perfect;

Eze 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

Satan was created perfect, yet he was able to sin and did.

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Every thing that God had made was "very good". This includes Adam and Eve, and all the angels, yet Adam and Eve were able to sin, as were one third of the angels.

So, why do you insist that a person must be born with a sin nature to sin when scripture itself proves otherwise?

Not only that, but scripture directly says we are made upright.

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

I am amazed that most Christians believe men are born sinners when there is not a single verse of scripture to support this, and completely ignore scripture that directly says God made man upright. Astounding.

This is why I prefer the unfallen angels as a more fitting antitype for that 99 sheep who have no need of repentance illustration.

Well, the sheep that was lost was a human being, why would the other 99 sheep not be human beings? The lost silver piece was a human being, why wouldn't the other 9 silver pieces be human beings. The father had two sons, the prodigal was a human being, why wouldn't the elder brother also be a human being?

So, I think your view very unreasonable.

I fully agree.

Correct, and we KNOW many millions of children have died in the womb or at a very young age. This would account for the 99 to 1 ratio of just persons who never went astray and need no repentance to the one that went astray and later repented.

When we read the list in Romans it is not only that they do not seek after God - it is that they have evil desires/tendencies and as we are told by God "the heart is deceitfully wicked" - from birth the rage of the infant is manifest.

Eve had evil desires before she sinned, see for yourself;

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

These are the three "lusts of the world" in order shown in 1 John 2:16. Eve saw the tree was good for food, this is the lust of the flesh. She saw it was pleasant to the eyes, this is the lust of the eyes. She saw it was desired to make one wise, this is the pride of life.

Eve had all of these desires, yet she was not yet fallen. She was still "very good". This shows that man is not evil because he has lusts, (Jesus had lusts), but man becomes evil when he actually obeys these lusts when they would cause him to transgress God's law.

Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, but he never obeyed these lusts when they would have caused him to break God's law. This is why Jesus was not a sinner.

Likewise, if Eve had walked away from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, she would not have been a sinner.

But you cannot deny she had sinful lusts BEFORE she actually sinned, and yet she was considered "very good" by God himself.

Babies are born with lusts, many are necessary to survive. These do not make a child evil or sinful. A child becomes sinful when he is of age and understands good from evil. At this point, if he obeys his lust when it transgresses God's law, then he becomes a guilty sinner.

The inability is in that fact that the person does not seek God. And in Romans 8 Paul says that the mind set on the sinful nature "does not submit to the Law of God - neither indeed CAN it".

Romans 3 does not teach inability, and neither does Romans 8. What Romans 8 is saying, is that while man gives supreme attention to the flesh he cannot please God. It is not saying he cannot do otherwise and attend to spiritual things.

You cannot please your wife while you look at a young girl in a bikini, but that does not mean you cannot look away and please your wife. This is how Romans 8 should be understood, while you give supreme attention to the flesh you cannot please God.

So the inability is established in Romans 8 and it is universal according to Romans 3.

That is not what it is saying. It is saying while you give supreme attention to the flesh you cannot please God. It is not saying you are unable to think spiritually. In fact, scripture PROVES men without the Spirit can be willing to be obedient.

Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak

The disciples did not have the indwelling Spirit at this point, so Jesus is speaking of their human spirit they were born with. Jesus said their spirit was willing to be obedient, but their flesh was weak. This is what Paul describes in Romans 7. Paul is not speaking as a saved man in Romans 7, because he said he was "sold under sin" that he was a "servant" to sin, and he does not mention the Holy Spirit even once in this chapter. Yet he desired to do good.

Romans 8:9 tells us a person without the Spirit is "in the flesh" but we know men receive the Spirit AFTER believing.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians received the Holy Spirit by first believing the gospel, this completely refutes your view of inability.

But so also is the "drawing of God" that enables all that the inability disables according to John 12:32 - God "Draws all" and according to John 16 He "convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" - not just the saints, not just the saved.

The scripture does say that no man can come to Jesus unless drawn, but it is explained in the next verse.

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Why are men unable to come to Jesus? Because they are ignorant. They must hear of Jesus before they can believe on him, they must be taught. This is exactly what Paul teaches in Romans 10:14;

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Does Paul say a man must be regenerated to have the ability to believe? NO, he says they must hear of Jesus. No man can believe what he does not know. Man's inability is because he is ignorant of Jesus, not because he lacks the ability to believe. And the fact that Paul mentions no other conditions that prevent a man from believing on Jesus implies that knowledge is the only thing man lacks, just as John 6:45 says.

Agreed. In Romans 3 we have the universal "no one seeks after God".

But in Romans 8 we have the "cannot" -- "the mind set on the sinful nature does not submit to the Law of God - neither indeed CAN it".

Correct, while your mind is set on the flesh you cannot please God, but it is not saying you cannot place your mind on spiritual matters.

Indeed. But free will is supernaturally created by God for Adam in his very creation. Then after the fall it is supernaturally enabled/maintained/sustained by God in the Gen 3 "placing of enmity" (war) between the seed of the woman and the seed of the saint - for all mankind.

And also "drawing ALL" John 12:32 - which even by Calvinist standards the drawing of God enables all the depravity disables in terms of the free will choice to accept the Gospel.

They just object to the "unqualified ALL" that you find in John 12:32.

in Christ,

Bob

The inability is ignorance, not free will. Paul does not mention free will in Romans 10:14, he simply asks how any man can believe in Jesus unless he has HEARD of him. He does not mention any other hindrance to believing.

 

[BobRyan]

The scripture does say that no man can come to Jesus unless drawn, but it is explained in the next verse.

Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Why are men unable to come to Jesus? Because they are ignorant. They must hear of Jesus before they can believe on him, they must be taught. This is exactly what Paul teaches in Romans 10:14;

Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Does Paul say a man must be regenerated to have the ability to believe? NO, he says they must hear of Jesus. .

1. We are both arguing for the Arminian position so neither of us imagines that one must be born again to then choose salvation, repentance, confession, belief - but rather the other way around.

2. It does not help the Arminian position to try and get around the supernatural universal "Drawing of ALL" unto God - that is in John 12:32 as if this were not necessary for the complete requirement for "no man can come to Jesus unless drawn"

3. You are bringing up the Romans 10 text as if this is the one that claims that all those without a Bible are not drawn. (Perhaps as a way to argue for the idea that all are not being enabled with free will choice by the drawing of all). But that does not work in your favor because in Romans 10 Paul argues that the "hearing" is had through nature. And nature reaches "all".

Therefore rather than optional or parital - the work of God in "Convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16:8 along with the "Drawing of ALL" John 12:32 provides the necessary preconditions to draw sinful man and even by Calvinist standards to enable all that depravity disables.

That fact works perfectly in favor of the Arminian position.

4. To say that the heart set on the sinful nature "DOES not" submit to the law of God - makes your point - but to say it "CANNOT submit to the Law of God" goes beyond that - and makes my point about the sinful nature.

It is enabled to repent, to give up to God - through the supernatural work of God "drawing ALL" - not through its own innate ability.

Here is again is a principle in complete harmony with the Arminian position because it results in all mankind having free will -- even though we all have a sinful nature - because all are drawn by Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Winman]

1. We are both arguing for the Arminian position so neither of us imagines that one must be born again to then choose salvation, repentance, confession, belief - but rather the other way around.

2. It does not help the Arminian position to try and get around the supernatural universal "Drawing of ALL" unto God - that is in John 12:32 as if this were not necessary for the complete requirement for "no man can come to Jesus unless drawn"

3. You are bringing up the Romans 10 text as if this is the one that claims that all those without a Bible are not drawn. (Perhaps as a way to argue for the idea that all are not being enabled with free will choice by the drawing of all). But that does not work in your favor because in Romans 10 Paul argues that the "hearing" is had through nature. And nature reaches "all".

Therefore rather than optional or parital - the work of God in "Convicting the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" John 16:8 along with the "Drawing of ALL" John 12:32 provides the necessary preconditions to draw sinful man and even by Calvinist standards to enable all that depravity disables.

That fact works perfectly in favor of the Arminian position.

4. To say that the heart set on the sinful nature "DOES not" submit to the law of God - makes your point - but to say it "CANNOT submit to the Law of God" goes beyond that - and makes my point about the sinful nature.

It is enabled to repent, to give up to God - through the supernatural work of God "drawing ALL" - not through its own innate ability.

Here is again is a principle in complete harmony with the Arminian position because it results in all mankind having free will -- even though we all have a sinful nature - because all are drawn by Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

I am not at all concerned with "harmonizing" with the Arminian position. I let scriptures say what they say, I do not interpret scripture to agree with a preconceived doctrine.

Romans 10:14 directly addresses HOW a person believes in Jesus. Paul simply asks "and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?" This question implies that what man lacks is knowledge, and that being taught about Jesus is what enables a man to believe.

John 6:45 also shows how man is drawn, by being taught by the Father. Every man that has heard and learned from the Father shall come to Jesus.

Where non-Cals differ from Calvinists, is that Calvinists believe a man must be supernaturally regenerated before he can be willing to hear and learn, while non-Cals believe men have the innate ability to hear and learn from the word of God if they choose to do so.

Romans 10:14 supports the non-Cal position, it does not mention the need or requirement of being supernaturally regenerated to hear or learn, it simply implies a man must hear the word of God to believe.

Now, I am not saying the word of God and Holy Spirit do not work through the scriptures to draw and convict a man, they certainly do. The scriptures are clear that the Word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword and able to pierce to the very dividing asunder of soul and spirit.

But all man has to do is hear the word of God, and this alone enables him to believe in Jesus if he so chooses to do so.

 

[Winman]

Here is again is a principle in complete harmony with the Arminian position because it results in all mankind having free will -- even though we all have a sinful nature - because all are drawn by Christ.

First of all, I want to say I enjoy debating with you Bob, you set forth your points without name calling and other forms of false argument. I appreciate that.

I am not Arminian Bob. I probably do not believe like any other person here at BB.

Where I differ from Arminians is that I do not believe man is born with a sin nature. Now, that said, I do believe man is born FLESH, and that the flesh tempts a man. This is abundantly clear throughout scripture. But I do not believe being flesh and being tempted is a sin nature.

First of all, the scriptures are absolutely clear that Jesus came in the very same flesh and blood as us, he took on the exact same nature as the seed of Abraham, and that he was made like unto his brethren the Jews in ALL THINGS.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

In his humanity, Jesus was exactly like us. So if we have a sin nature, then so did Jesus. I reject this completely.

But to say Jesus was different is to deny he came in the flesh which is the spirit of antichrist.

1 Jhn 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

So, you have 3 choices here.

#1 We have a sin nature, and so did Jesus.

#2 Jesus did not come in the flesh

#3 Jesus did not have a sin nature, and neither do we.

Now, that's it, that's the only 3 options available.

The problem is the word "nature". What does it mean? When the scripture speaks of our nature, is it speaking of our constitution, or of learned and acquired behavior? I say that it is speaking of learned and acquired behavior.

The scriptures actually say more good about our nature than bad;

Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

This verse says Gentiles "by nature" do the things contained in the law. This is saying man's nature is GOOD.

Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

This verse says men left the "natural" use of the opposite sex and did change it to that which is against "nature".

This is saying that man's nature is GOOD. It is when men go against their nature that they sin according to these verses.

Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

Is man's nature here described as evil, or good? GOOD.

But man's nature is also described as evil in scriptures.

Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

One of Calvinism's favorite verses, which they often proof-text to prove men are born sinners. Does it say men are born sinners? NO, it simply says men by nature are children of wrath. Folks see the word "children" and assume that means we are born that way.

Are we born "children of God"? NO, we have to trust Christ to become the children of God. So, being "children of wrath" does not necessarily mean you were born that way. It could mean that, but there could also be another explanation, and I believe that is what scriptures show.

As I wrote before, Eve clearly had wrong desires before she ate the forbidden fruit.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Again, these are the three worldly lusts described in 1 Jhn 2:16. Eve saw the tree was good for food, this is the lust of the flesh. She saw it was pleasant to the eyes, this is the lust of the eyes. She saw it was desired to make one wise, this is the pride of life.

Eve had all of these desires BEFORE she took the forbidden fruit. Was Eve evil here? Did Eve have an evil nature here? NO, according to God she was very good. (Gen 1:31).

Was Eve evil after she chose to eat the forbidden fruit? YES. So having an sinful nature is a CHOICE. It is a wilful and knowing choice to do that which a person knows is wrong to satisfy a bodily or mental lust.

And that is exactly what Eph 2:3 says, we were children of wrath because we chose to fulfill the desires of the flesh and mind when they were in violation of one of God's laws. This is when we acquire a sinful nature.

A little child does not have the capacity to make this choice, and so cannot have a sin nature.

Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

As you see, scripture shows little children do not at first know to refuse evil and choose good. So they cannot have a sin nature.

I am not saying they do not have sinful lusts, they do. But it is not our lusts that make us evil, else Jesus would have been evil.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Jesus was not immune to temptation, he felt them just as strongly as we do, perhaps even more.

So, it is not being flesh and having strong desires that tug and pull at us that makes us evil. Temptation is NOT sin. It is willingly and knowingly choosing to fulfill our lusts that makes us evil and by a nature a child of wrath.

So, you see, I am not Arminian like you.

 

[webdog]

Winman, what you differentiate between nature and flesh is a distinction without a difference, and in no way proves a different or higher view of Christ's humanity. If anything, having a human nature as we do without ever sinning...not even once...is truly more remarkable and proves His divinity that much more. Nature is also not a learned behavior, it is an instinctual, built in trait.

I think you also misapply the meaning behind the Ephesians 2:3 passage where the intent is to show only that by being a natural Jew they had the same problem as the 'gentile sinner'. A nature is neither evil nor innocent.

 

[Winman]

Winman, what you differentiate between nature and flesh is a distinction without a difference, and in no way proves a different or higher view of Christ's humanity. If anything, having a human nature as we do without ever sinning...not even once...is truly more remarkable and proves His divinity that much more. Nature is also not a learned behavior, it is an instinctual, built in trait.

Oh, I agree, it blows my mind that Jesus could live 33 years in this world and never sin once. That is beyond my comprehension.

But I disagree about our nature being constitutional, I believe scriptures say it is learned behavior.

Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

This is one of Calvinism's favorite proof texts. But to be fair, many non-Cals also use this verse as a proof text to prove we are born with a sin nature. It actually says the exact opposite.

If Jeremiah was saying these Jews were born sinners, just like an Ethiopian is born with dark skin, or a leopard has spots, then he would be giving them the PERFECT EXCUSE for sin.

These persons could reply that they were born with a sin nature that compels them to sin and that they had no choice in the matter.

And WHO gave the Ethiopian his dark skin and the leopard his spots? GOD. So this interpretation makes God the author of sin.

No, Jeremiah is using a form of sarcasm and hyperbole here. He is saying that these Jews are so used to sinning that it has almost become their constitutional nature.

And the word "accustomed" means a learned behavior. It is like drinking, almost no one likes the taste of alcohol the first time they try it, but if they keep drinking it they become accustomed to it. The same with smoking, the first time a person smokes they cough or get nauseated, but if they continue to smoke they become accustomed to it.

So Jeremiah is actually teaching that sin is a learned behavior here, but that goes over a lot of folks heads.

1 Pet 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

This verse says our vain and sinful conversation or behavior was received by tradition from our fathers. We learn to sin by those around us.

Psa 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Another favorite verse used to prove we are born sinful. Does it?

What language do you speak? Why do you speak that particular language?

Everyone speaks the language of their parents. You will never hear of a baby born to English speaking parents speaking French or Spanish. No, a baby always speaks the language he is exposed to in his formative years.

And that baby is also exposed to lying, and this is where he learns how to lie.

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Another favorite proof text. Does it prove we are born sinners? No, but it proves WHY we become sinners, because we are exposed to sin.

Every see a baby be born? They are covered with their mother's blood.

Jerry Seinfeld understood this principle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKC5jjFkfgo

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus was/is God Incarnate, and He is ONLY Human ever born without a sin nature!

why is it considered to be so amazing that the Lord God would be able to stay from sin, for he is NOT same as you ansd I, as He Never had Sin nature, nor could sin!

 

[Winman]

Jesus was/is God Incarnate, and He is ONLY Human ever born without a sin nature!

why is it considered to be so amazing that the Lord God would be able to stay from sin, for he is NOT same as you ansd I, as He Never had Sin nature, nor could sin!

 

[Yeshua1]

Was Jesus with SAME nature that you and I were born with?

Was he sinless due to never sinning, or due to Him being God in human flesh?

Could He have actually sinned?

was He JUST the same as you and me?

 

[Winman]

Was Jesus with SAME nature that you and I were born with?

Yes, the same nature as the seed of Abraham, who was born after the "fall".

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Was he sinless due to never sinning, or due to Him being God in human flesh?

He was sinless because he never sinned.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Could He have actually sinned?

Jesus implied that he could sin.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

The word "if" implies possibility.

And what is the point of the Spirit leading Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted if he could not sin? Nonsensical.

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

was He JUST the same as you and me?

That's what the Bible says;

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

What does "the same" mean to you?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, the same nature as the seed of Abraham, who was born after the "fall".

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.



He was sinless because he never sinned.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.



Jesus implied that he could sin.

Jhn 8:55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.

The word "if" implies possibility.

And what is the point of the Spirit leading Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted if he could not sin? Nonsensical.

Mat 4:1 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.



That's what the Bible says;

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

What does "the same" mean to you?

It emans that Jesus was born in the "likeness" not 'sameness" of human flesh, asHhe was without a sin nature due to being God Incarnated, as God CANNOT have sin resing within Him, for he is light, and there is NO darkness in Him!

jesus was unique, as NO other Human ever born, as He was/is God Incarnate!

 

[webdog]

It emans that Jesus was born in the "likeness" not 'sameness" of human flesh, asHhe was without a sin nature due to being God Incarnated, as God CANNOT have sin resing within Him, for he is light, and there is NO darkness in Him!

jesus was unique, as NO other Human ever born, as He was/is God Incarnate!

That's the same heresy the first century gnostics used to spout, which was refuted. He was fully human, 100%...not just appeared human or 95% human. Of course He is unique...He is also 100% God!! That doesn't negate the former.